Thursday, October 30, 2008

In case you can't access the above, what Obama said is below the fold.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Those Oh-So-Reliable Voting Machines

An independent lab that tests and certifies voting machines is being suspended by the federal Election Assistance Commission from testing voting systems for failing to conform to procedures and requirements set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Review Of David Horowitz's October 15, 2008, Speech At UVA (Part Two)

Mr. Horowitz, accompanied by a bodyguard whose eyes constantly surveilled the audience throughout the entire two hours, spoke primarily about the fascist orientation of Islamic radicals. He cited the connection between Hassan al-Banna, author of The Way of Jihad and propagator of genocide against the Jews. Of course, Mr. Horowitz also mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, the Holy Land Foundation, the Muslim Student Union, the Islamic Society or North America, the Muslim Student Association, and CAIR during the course of his lecture and elaborated on these organizations' ties to various acts of terrorism and the suppression of freedom.

Much of Mr. Horowitz’s speech was a debunking of what he called “The Big Lie,” specifically, the false teaching that so-called Palestine was stolen from the Arabs, and he offered numerous historical facts to prove his point, including The Palestinian Mandate, established after World War I. He stated that he wanted the students present to hear what university professors refuse to or cannot speak of because of the pervading leftist administrations at most universities. He advised the students to read The PLO Charter on the Internet and to watch video presentations posted at The Terrorism Awareness Project for additional understanding of the points made during the speech. Two of those videos: What Really Happened in the Middle East and The Islamic Mein Kampf.-----------Most of the Mr. Horowitz’s speech did not deal with the specifics of Islamic doctrines. As he stated when he began speaking, he is not an authority on Islam per se and advised consulting a good source of information about Islamitself, namely, Robert Spencer. Mr. Horowitz did point out that the jihadists derive their hate from the Koran and the Haditha, leading jihadists to preach and teach as follows: “Death in the service of Allah is our highest aspiration.” Therefore, in Mr. Horowitz's view, radical Islam should be recognized for what it is – a fanatical death cult and an ideology rife with racism.

Following his lecture, Mr. Horowitz took many questions from the audience. One student, a young Moslem woman wearing the hijab, attempted to take him to task for his advocating carpet bombing the Gaza Strip so as to create a wide enough barrier preventing short-range rockets from reaching Israel. She attempted to twist his words and accused him of promoting "ethnic cleansing." He told her that such had not been his point at all, but she persisted that he had indeed advocated genocide. Mr. Horowitz managed to control his impatience and re-explained, prefacing his second explanation with “I know what I said, and I know what I meant.” She clearly lost any point she was trying to make when Mr. Horowitz called her hand for lying.

Another Moslem student claimed that she was unfamiliar with one of the quotes Mr. Horowitz had mentioned early in the lecture, the quote about the rock crying out that a Jew was hiding behind that rock and the rock summoning the Muslim to kill the Jew. Her self-proclaimed ignorance of that passage, “I’ve never heard that verse,” fell flat.

From beginning to end, Mr. Horowitz's speech was effective. He spoke without notes, thus showing his extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Moreover, Mr. Horowitz's stopping early enough to allow for at least one half of the allotted two hours in Minor Hall so as to conduct a lively question-and-answer period speaks to his willingness to discuss, thereby make the evening an exchange of ideas and opinions. As he pointed out during his presentation, getting only one side of an issue, be that side left or right, leads to a incomplete education and the suppression of the ability to think for oneself.

Perhaps the best testimony to the excellence of the evening was Mr. AOW's reaction: "The trip to hear this man speak was worth the long drive" — high praise from my husband, who typically takes little interest in the subjects in which I've been engrossed ever since 9/11.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

No-Obama 08 Blog Burst: Presidential Character

Presidential Character

Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.------I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.

Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.

In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.

In the twentieth Century, notable republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.

In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.

Ronald Reagan was once a democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”

Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.

Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.

Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?

It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.

Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;

Economic Policy

· An immediate energy rebate to American families

· An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy

· Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure

· Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending

· Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges

· Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools

· Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.

· Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.

· National health care initiatives

We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.

John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:

Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.

Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.

Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.

On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.

We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan

Monday, October 27, 2008

Berg's Lawsuit Dismissed

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

I don't know that I quibble with Berg's lacking standing. That may indeed be so.

But Obama's Constitutional qualifications don't matter? Is that what the judge is saying? If so, then this also follows:

When I posted the above over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, an anonymous commenter left this link. Excerpt:

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom.

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case....

Now, sometimes the blogosphere is filled with rumor and unsubstantiated data presented as fact. Then again, sometimes the blogosphere does report the truth. Wasn't it the blogosphere which broke the story of all the PhotoShopped material used by the mainstream press during the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006?

As I said earlier in this post, my primary concern about the dismissal of the law suit is that the judge — a Clinton appointee, if I'm not mistaken — appears to have ruled that Constitutional requirements for the office of President of the United States can be ignored. Another manifestation of Obama-mania? You decide.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Your Weekend Political Cartoon

(Click directly on the image to enlarge it)

That about sums it up!

Of course, some maintain that Obama's shady connections, friendships, relationships, and affiliations don't matter. The adherents, obsessed with "Obama the Uniter," choose to stop up their ears and cover their eyes. In my view, these types of Obama defenders have been drinking the Koolaid and are beyond reasoning with:

Having "drunk the Kool-Aid" also refers to being a strong or fervent believer in a particular philosophy or mission — wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.

The question now: Have so many voters drunk the Kool-Aid that Obama will be elected on November 4?

● In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

● A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

● Update, Oct. 21: A second Obama ad claims that McCain’s plan would bring about a 22 percent cut in benefits, “higher premiums and co-pays," and more expensive prescription drugs.

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned.McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts....

From the "Analysis" section of the article at FactCheck.org:

[T]o state as a matter of fact that McCain will be forced to cut benefits, or that he is proposing any such thing, is simply a falsehood designed to frighten elderly voters.

Tonight on KFNX Talk-Radio

Thursday, October 23, at 8:00 P.M. Phoenix time, WCandI will host "Voices of Freedom," a one-hour weekly show on KFNX 1100. See this time-zone chart (Refresh the page!) if you are in a different time zone than Phoenix, Arizona; click directly on the word "PHOENIX" to get a world map of time zones.

Our scheduled guest, who will host most of the hour, is retired foreign-service officer James Horn.------Tune in if you can! In addition to AM air time at the scheduled hour, KFNX offers live streaming at the station's web site.

Review Of David Horowitz's October 15, 2008, Speech At UVA (Part One)

As part of Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, on October 15, 2008, David Horowitz gave a presentation at the University of Virginia. On my way into the lecture, all entrants were met on the steps outside Minor Hall with students who were handing out a flyer entitled “Hate Speech? Or Freedom of Speech? A Fact Sheet on Hate Speech, Hate Crimes, and the First Amendment”; the groups responsible for the flyer were the Middle Eastern Leadership Council and the Minority Rights Coalition, the latter consisting of the Asian Student Union, the Black Student Alliance, Feminism is For Everyone, La Alianza Coalition of Hispanic/Latino Leaders, the Middle Eastern Leadership Council, and the Queer Student Union. The following appeared as the “Introduction” on the flyer:

Individual liberty is protected in as much as a community is protected. When a community is not protected and its voice is stifled, the individuals of that community are prevented from exercising their liberties. It is for this very reason, our society has limits to freedom of speech and legislation against hate crimes. Hate crimes exact violence against an individual because of a specific aspect of his or her background. This violence is not only committed against the personal but against those of that person’s demographic, because it instills fear into that entire category. In the same way, hate speech can propagate false perceptions of a community and has the potential to incite violence against the community. As a society the right to freedom of speech is one of the most protected, but exceptions do apply.

Apparently, the MELC and the MRC, the groups sponsoring the flyer, believed that David Horowitz should not have been invited to speak at UVA and that his speaking at the university constituted an exception to the right of freedom of speech — reminiscent of the revised commandment in George Orwell's Animal Farm: "Some animals are more equal than others."

Several students who were distributing the flyer before Mr. Horowitz's lecture took their seats in Minor Hall at the last minute, just before he gave his presentation; some of those same students challenged Mr. Horowitz in the question-and-answer period following the lecture, but they at least sat respectfully and quietly during the presentation itself. Early in his lecture, Mr. Horowitz made brief reference to the flyer, a copy of which he had in his hand. Did those handing out the flyer give a copy directly to Mr. Horowitz? I don’t know. But his disdain for the flyer was apparent, and he clearly felt that his message should not in any way be termed "hate speech."

At the conclusion of the event, when Mr. Horowitz was being interviewed-on-tape by a local television channel (I overheard all that he said because I was standing about five feet away as I waited to speak with him), he gave credit to the decent behavior of the students at UVA: not once was he interrupted by any student while he was lecturing or answering questions (although an older fellow, obviously not a student, did interrupt Mr. Horowitz during the question-and-answer period and uttered anti-Semitic remarks, resulting in the summoning of two campus polices officers, who calmed down the aged leftist so that he was allowed to remain). Apparently, Mr. Horowitz was not as respectfully received at other universities, and he expressed to the media his gratitude for the calm behavior of the UVA students, especially to those who disagreed with what he had said. He termed the question-and-answer period "a good exchange of differing opinions."

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Blog Burst: An Enigma Named Barack

An Enigma Named Barackby L. A. Sunset

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.

Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.

Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.

Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.

Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.

Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.

Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.

Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)

Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.

Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.

Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.

Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Undergroundleader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”

Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board forsix years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”

Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.

Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).

Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party

Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.

From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.

Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.

Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.

John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.

Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.

Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.

Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.

We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.

We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

Monday, October 20, 2008

General Powell's Endorsement Of Obama

One day after the former secretary of state endorsed him, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says if elected, he would offer formal or informal role to Colin Powell.

WASHINGTON -- Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

"Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss," Obama said....

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The FBI Changes Their Minds

FBI CAVES TO CAIR. Will those sweet, dear brutalized girls ever get justice? They died in vain.. The West failed them in life and the West has failed them in death.

[...]

This is what was purged from the FBI Most wanted poster.

...The 17- and 18-year-old girls were dating American boys, which was contrary to their father's rules of not dating non-Muslim boys. Reportedly, the girls were murdered due to an "Honor Killing."...

I previously posted about the FBI's finally using the term "honor killings" HERE, on October 15. My optimistic reaction that a tiny bit of progress had been made in at least recognizing that Amina and Sarah Said were murdered in an honor killing was short-lived.

CAIR and obfuscation triumph again.

Murder in the Family: Honor Killing In America (Part 2), about 10 minutes:

Murder in the Family: Honor Killing In America (Part 3), about 10 minutes:

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Your Weekend Political Cartoon

“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”—Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaking to Joe Wurzelbacher, Ohio plumber.

The source for the above cartoon is below the fold:Web site Get Liberty

Friday, October 17, 2008

Obama's Tax-Cuts Scam

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:...

Read the rest. The Obama tax-cuts plan is a tool for wealth redistribution.

What Obama's plan would do is to write a check to the millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes at all. For those of us who work for a living, we will pay higher taxes to support this massive transfer of wealth.

Another item in Obama's tax cuts are the tax credits he will provide. All but one of these tax credits are refundable -- the others only work if you have a tax liability. The liability is reduced by the credit, but you don't get it as a refund.

Pity that the Obamamaniacs believe their candidate's promises. Those promises are full of hot air.

(Crossposted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, a site which follows this election - and all its many ramifications and irregularities)

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Coming Soon: Review Of David Horowitz's Speech

Yesterday afternoon, Mr. AOW and I drove over two hours to the main campus of UVA in Charlottesville to hear David Horowitz speak on why he turned conservative and the current threat of Islamofascism.-------Mr. AOW usually doesn't attend such events. But the opposition to Mr. Horowitz's message and the man's phenomenal speaking ability held Mr. AOW in his front-row seat. That's saying something! For my part, I was able to speak briefly to Mr. Horowitz before Mr. AOW and I left for the journey back to Northern Virginia.

Mr. Horowitz's speech last night was part of this year's Islamofascism Awareness Week. More information HERE, including but not limited to other presentations by various speakers participating in Islamofascism Awareness Week.

I work a full schedule today, including co-hosting VOICES OF FREEDOM on KFNX. Having taken copious notes last night, I'll write a review of Mr. Horowitz's speech in the next few days.

Tonight On KFNX Talk-Radio (with addendum)

Thursday, October 16, at 8:00 P.M. Phoenix time, WCandI will host "Voices of Freedom," a one-hour weekly show on KFNX 1100. See this time-zone chart (Refresh the page!) if you are in a different time zone than Phoenix, Arizona; click directly on the word "PHOENIX" to get a world map of time zones.

Our scheduled guest, who will host most of the hour, is counter-terrorism specialist James Horn.------Tune in if you can! In addition to AM air time at the scheduled hour, KFNX offers live streaming at the station's web site.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

FBI Finally Calls The Murders Of The Said Sisters Honor Killings

Almost a year after two teenage girls were found dead — allegedly executed by their father — in the back seat of a taxicab in Texas, the FBI is saying for the first time that the case may have been an "honor killing."

Sarah Said, 17, and her sister Amina, 18, were killed on New Year's Day, but for nine months authorities deflected questions about whether their father — the prime suspect and the subject of a nationwide manhunt — may have targeted them because of a perceived slight upon his honor.The girls' great-aunt, Gail Gartrell, says the girls' Egyptian-born father killed them both because he felt they disgraced the family by dating non-Muslims and acting too Western, and she called the girls' murders an honor killing from the start.

But the FBI held off on calling it an honor killing until just recently, when it made Yaser Abdel Said the "featured fugitive" on its Web site.

"That's what I've been trying to tell everybody all along," Gartrell told FOXNews.com. "I would say that's a victory."

And here comes the usual disclaimer from CAIR:

But some Muslims say that calling the case an honor killing goes too far.

"As far as we're concerned, until the motive is proven in a court of law, this is [just] a homicide," Mustafaa Carroll, the executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations in Dallas, told FOXNews.com.

He said he worries that terms like "honor killing" may stigmatize the Islamic community. “We (Muslims) don’t have the market on jealous husbands ... or domestic violence,” Carroll said.

The United Nations estimates that 5,000 women are killed worldwide every year in honor killings — mostly in the Middle East, where many countries still have laws that protect men who murder female relatives they believe have engaged in inappropriate activity. A U.N. report includes chilling examples of such cases.

“On the order of clerics, an 18-year-old woman was flogged to death in Batsail, Bangladesh, for "immoral behavior,” the report reads. “In Egypt, a father paraded his daughter's severed head through the streets shouting, ‘I avenged my honor.’”

But Islamic scripture in no way condones such actions, Carroll said.

"People have their own cultural nuances and norms from before they got their religion," he said. "This is not Islamic culture."

Regardless of whether religion itself is to blame, Gartrell said it is important that society recognizes the case as having a cultural element, just to prevent similar crimes in the future.

"That culture is so different," Gartrell said. "If people had been more educated about it, they would have known that when the girls told people, 'Dad wants to kill me' — they were serious."

Many of the threats against Sarah and Amina Said were known to their friends and classmates.

High school friends told the Dallas Morning News that the girls sometimes came in with welts and bruises, which they confided were inflicted by their father. One time, Yaser Said reportedly went into one daughter's bedroom waving a gun and making threats on her life.

After he threatened to kill one daughter in December 2007 — documented in text messages Sarah Said sent to a friend — the girls and their mother, Patricia, fled from their home in Lewisville, Texas, to Tulsa, Okla. But the mother soon had a change of heart and went back, leading to the tragedy on January 1. Some, including Gartrell, believe the mother may even have been complicit in the murders.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, author of several books, including "The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom," said that the case fits the description of an honor killing.

"The premeditation, the family collaboration, and the particular rules (set for the girls) make this consistent with an honor killing — not just domestic violence,” she said.

She said she hoped that calling the case an "honor killing" might indicate a shift in attitude at the FBI.

"I think this may suggest that law enforcement is beginning to realize that they may have to treat these incidents differently if they are to either prevent or prosecute," Chesler told FOXNews.com.

She noted that the United Kingdom has a special police unit to deal with “honor-related violence,” and said that she hoped that the situation in the U.S. does not get to the point where that becomes necessary.

But an FBI spokesman played down the significance of the listing, saying that the change on the wanted listing was simply due to more information coming out about the case since it was first listed and that it shouldn't matter what the case is called.

"We're just looking at how do we find the guy?" said FBI special agent Mark White, media coordinator in the bureau's Dallas office.

Irving Police Department Public Information Officer David Tull agreed. "We just look at the facts. The man killed his two daughters. This is a domestic violence, multiple-capital murder case."

Tull said that, unfortunately, there have still been no sightings or major leads — a fact that distresses Gartrell.

"I'm very upset about it," said Gartrell, who argues that the case needs special consideration. "This is not a typical murder case. When a family member murders another family member to protect [the family] name — that's different."

Go HERE for more photos of Amina and Sarah Said; click on the thumbnails to enlarge images.

HERE is the wanted poster. He is still at large! How did he get away so cleanly and so quickly from the murder scene? Why haven't the brutal murders of these two girls received more attention from the media?

If the Light Goes out Stateside, the Light Goes out for Us All

There is no doubt that the USA is going through tough times; indeed, its very foundations are being rocked – financial and economic. Indeed, it could be argued that capitalism, the US’s raison d’être is being challenged profoundly. The current president, George W Bush, has only added to America’s problems. He has been a disaster for America. It is time for him to retire. And retire he will – shortly.

The recent débâcle with the USA’s most prestigious financial institutions either going to the wall, or having to be all but nationalized has only added to America’s woes.

It is a national disgrace that this profligate president has brought the once proud nation almost to its knees. America’s national debt is at an all time high: more than three trillion dollars, and still counting. Since 2001, a spurious war on terrorism has been fought, mostly in vain, since terrorism is not the ailment; rather it is a symptom of a far greater malady, namely Islam itself. It is rather like a medical consultant trying to treat the symptoms of cancer without excising the underlying cause: the tumour itself!

The US economy, totally deregulated as it has been since the era of Reagan, has succumbed to the worst of man’s faults and weaknesses: Greed. The people working on Wall Street, as in the City of London, have been paying themselves bonuses in Monopoly figures: Millions here, and tens of millions there. The result is there for all to see: The economic system has all but collapsed; and the American taxpayer is now being asked to pick up the tab.

It’s a disgrace. Nothing short of a national disgrace. There is simply no reason why the American taxpayer should bail out the bankers and financiers of Wall Street, with all their greediness and excesses. They certainly should not be expected to pay for the bonuses of these greedy and unprincipled people. They should be allowed to perish, as should the institutions they worked for.

The bail-out is flawed to its very core. When people in America are going hungry, and when more than forty million people there cannot afford healthcare, there is something very flawed in a bail-out plan which cossets the very people who have caused the near collapse of the capitalist system.

Yet, for all the flaws of the capitalist system, we have nothing better with which to replace it. It is an imperfect system to be sure; but it’s the very best system man has ever been able to come up with. We must nurture it; and we must certainly be careful that we do not lose it.

America is no paradise on earth; America’s sidewalks are not paved with gold. America is as flawed as anywhere else on earth. Yet America has given the world something which the rest of the world has been unable to give people. It has given them hope and freedom – the hope to aspire to a better life; and the freedom to live without fear. How many other countries can say the same?

America has been a beacon of freedom for a couple of centuries. People have for centuries flocked there in their droves, in search of a better life. As a result, America has become a hub of creativity, for nothing fosters creativity more than freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

Yet, we are living through very difficult times. So many, worldwide, are gloating in the difficulties that America is now experiencing. When the US was attacked on September 11, 2001, few could have imagined the success that OBL would have had by flying planes into the Twin Towers in New York. Indeed, OBL couldn’t have dreamed of a better outcome from this attack. He wanted to bring the USA to its knees; and to its knees it has just about brought it.

But if anyone out there is happy about this, then his happiness is totally misplaced; and for one simple reason: If America is no longer to be the world’s superpower, then the world will fall into darkness.

Why? Because the US has guaranteed freedom not only for itself, but also for much of the rest of the world. Which other country in the world could do this? Russia certainly couldn’t. In Russia, one goes against the political system at one’s own peril. Ask the once richest man of Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky! He’ll tell you the price he has had to pay for perceived criticism of the system, and for political activity in a country which understands neither democracy nor freedom.

In a silly article asking who else would be up to replacing America’s hegemony, SpiegelOnline International posed the question who could take over from America’s pole position. The answer is no-one! Which other country could guarantee us all such freedoms? Which other country would be so generous with its resources? Which other country would come to aid all in time of need?

Where would Germany be today without the aid of America after the Second World War? And where would Britain be today without America’s help in that very same war? Indeed, how free would Europe be today without the the help of the generous, oh so generous Americans?

America, and the rest of the West, is under threat from the Islamic world; indeed, our great Judeo-Christian civilization could go under because of the threat of Islam. Islam is not only knocking at our door, it is already within, and is out to destroy everything we in the West stand for: Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or the freedom to choose none, freedom of sexual expression, and freedom in so may other ways, too. Yet only the few are listening! Only the few are taking these threats to our liberties seriously.

For most people, these threats are but abstract, distant possibilities; yet they are not. They are anything but. They are very real. Muslims are here in the West; and many of them – though certainly not all – are out to destroy everything Western. They must NEVER be allowed to achieve their goals. We must this resist attack with every fibre of our beings. We must OVERCOME!

If we do not, the West will be taken into a New Dark Age. The way of life that will ensue will be one which will be quite unlike the way of life we have come to know, understand, appreciate, and love. It will be a repressive way of life – repressive for women, repressive for infidels, repressive for Christians, repressive for Jews, repressive for homosexuals, repressive, indeed, for all except Muslims.

If we are to fight this darkness, it is imperative that the United States be kept strong, and buoyed up. The United States needs to be strong militarily, financially, and economically, for without a strong United States, there is little hope for a free world. Little hope for liberty. If the light goes out Stateside, the light goes out for us all!

All Rights reserved

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Blog Burst: Obama/Biden Economic Plan A Fraud

OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD

The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?

We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.

-------

With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in amanner that benefits the middle class.

In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”

Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.

He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.

Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”

Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.

Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.

To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?

To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.

(click chart for larger image)

Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.

None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.

Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.

Protect our freedom and fight radical Islam

Contributors

Blog Supporter

IMPORTANT NOTICE:Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.